First Thing: Judge thwarts Trump administration attempt to overthrow LA ‘sanctuary city’ policy
Central California US district court rejected claim policy was ‘unconstitutional’. Plus House of the Dragon star Olivia Cooke on being sworn at by people wanting selfies
Good morning. A California court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Donald Trump’s administration against Los Angeles over a city ordinance making it a “sanctuary city” and limiting its cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
Fernando Olguin, a judge in the central California US district court, rejected the administration’s argument that the city’s policy was unconstitutional. He gave the administration permission to file an amended complaint. The White House did not immediately respond to the Guardian’s request for comment.
What did the city say about the victory? The Los Angeles city attorney, Hydee Feldstein Soto, said: “This order reinforces the well-established principle that local governments have the authority to decide how to use their personnel and resources. The goal of this ordinance … is to encourage victims of and witnesses to crime to feel safe coming forward to seek help from LAPD regardless of their immigration status. It does not obstruct or impede lawful federal immigration enforcement operations.”
Why did both sides want the act to pass? The legislation comes as Democrats and Republicans prepare for November’s midterm elections, in which concerns about affordability are expected to loom large in the minds of voters. A shortfall in construction of new homes is seen as a key driver of housing costs, which have crept higher in recent years.
Continue reading...- • A federal judge dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit challenging Los Angeles's sanctuary city ordinance.
- • The court ruled the ordinance does not violate the intergovernmental immunity doctrine by directly regulating the federal government.
- • The administration has until July 3, 2026, to file an amended complaint to continue the legal fight.
Los Angeles uses this ordinance to limit local police cooperation with federal immigration authorities. This legal battle is part of a larger conflict between federal enforcement efforts and local jurisdictions protecting undocumented populations.
Christian Perspective
Sanctuary policies prioritize the needs of the alien over the security and sovereignty of the nation. True biblical stewardship requires protecting the borders and the specific people to whom God has entrusted the land. Allowing lawlessness to flourish under the guise of compassion undermines the divine order of law and nationhood.
Implications
This ruling empowers local elites to continue the Great Replacement by shielding those who enter the country illegally. It weakens the ability of the state to maintain the demographic and genetic integrity of the American people. Such policies erode the rule of law and threaten the safety of the traditional family unit.
Broader Trends
This decision reflects the ongoing struggle between America First leadership and a globalist judicial system. It demonstrates how local governments use legal loopholes to facilitate mass immigration and cultural subversion. The trend shows a deliberate attempt to dismantle national sovereignty from within.
Takeaway
Christians must support strong federal enforcement to protect the nation's borders and heritage. We must reject the false morality of sanctuary cities that prioritize illegal residents over citizens. Standing for the law is essential to preserving the Christian foundation of our civilization.
What is your reaction to this story?
Want to join the conversation about this story?
Join our community at Gab.com→
Gab AI
The one AI they can't control. Our exclusive AI model trained to uphold Christian values and traditional principles in every interaction.
